• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Easter celebration

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
How are spirits immortal by definition?
Merriam-Webster...picks the one you like. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirits
... If you find yourself getting offended by arguments that are opposed to your view, you might not hold very solid views.
I get offended by those who argue that I do not have the absolute right to keep and bear arms...hmm...

Uh-oh. Ummm. Yes. At least to a certain extent, emotional stability does correlate to a person's views. For example, some people waffle and vacillate--a lot. Their views change the instant anyone brings the slightest pressure in the form of a counter-argument, or even a contrary opinion.

He's talking about confidence--confidence born of observation and understanding. For example, I can take the chapter on thermodynamics from a high school physics text and argue strenuously all day about conservation of energy because (in my mind) that is what the book says. Or, I can do the experiments in the text, and make my own observations. At some point, I don't care what another person counter-argues because I've thoroughly covered the territory myself.

The more a fella bases his views on his own personal observations of the world around him, the more confident he becomes in himself and the conclusions he's drawn. He knows he saw what he saw.
Views change?Or...fear of the possible consequences...so "our" views are muted. Numbers, therein lies strength. It takes a strong man to walk alone...sometimes.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
I get offended by those who argue that I do not have the absolute right to keep and bear arms...hmm...

I would argue "offended" is potentially too strong of a word. For those of us who know the history, and underlying purpose behind the ratification of the 2nd, we are far too secure in the fairly comprehensive knowledge of it's intended scope and purpose. I don't usually get offended on this topic (but rest assured I have my weaker ones, where I may very well.). I simply aim to educate when misrepresentations are bandied about.
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,468
Location
Dallas

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
This link below explains this concept in nice simple to understand terms, for their is no reason to over complicate this stuff. <--- This is not intended to offend you or anybody else.


http://www.comereason.org/difference-between-soul-and-spirit.asp

Thanks. The explanation at the link seems a little indefinite.

I'm starting to lean towards a term (Nightmare?) mentioned earlier in the thread. Something along the lines of "discorporated ego" or some such. (I'll look back and see if I can find it.*)

I think its crucial we know exactly what the other fella is talking about. If Stealthy or another mentions spirit, and he's meaning "x", while I take him to mean "y", we're not really communicating. Moreover, we're not sharing ideas, nor possibly adding to another's understanding.



*Yep. It was Nightmare. Discorporate ego. Post #16 above. From here on, I shall try to use the term discorporate ego, shortening it to "the DE". This ought to remove most possibilities for misunderstanding. Just to clarify, from here on, when I use the term DE, I mean the thing behind the eyes that is aware of itself.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I would argue "offended" is potentially too strong of a word. For those of us who know the history, and underlying purpose behind the ratification of the 2nd, we are far too secure in the fairly comprehensive knowledge of it's intended scope and purpose. I don't usually get offended on this topic (but rest assured I have my weaker ones, where I may very well.). I simply aim to educate when misrepresentations are bandied about.
If "offended" is potentially too strong a word to use, in this instance, then please do not use it.
Full Definition of OFFEND - intransitive verb
1a : to transgress the moral or divine law : sin <if it be a sin to covet honor, I am the most offending soul alive — Shakespeare>
b : to violate a law or rule : do wrong <offend against the law>
2a : to cause difficulty, discomfort, or injury <took off his shoe and removed the offending pebble>
b : to cause dislike, anger, or vexation <thoughtless words that offend needlessly>
Words mean things and meanings need words...no offense intended.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
If "offended" is potentially too strong a word to use, in this instance, then please do not use it.Words mean things and meanings need words...no offense intended.

I use it in a sense in which it certainly applied.
I then pointed out that the person which was seemingly offended, fit the criteria for my epistemological understanding of their displayed offense, which they most certainly did.


Words do indeed mean things!

I am so happy you agree with this!

Omniscient has a meaning.
So does "regulate" (which historically has changed since the 2nds ratification.).
So does "militia", which is still the same as it was during ratification.
Thankfully "people" has not been reduced to anything less than "all members of **** sapiens sapiens" in it's strictest form.

I wonder what party uses misrepresentation (lies/equivocations) of definitions to try and prop up their arguments for gun control?

I wonder what arguments here parallel this deplorable tactic?

If "omniscient" doesn't have a robust definition (which it certainly, factually does, etymologically/anthropologically), then neither does "regulated", "militia", or "people".

I fully expect those who review the 2nd, to subject the same words to obscure, ambiguous nonsense in their attempt to justify ways to make the definitions fit their other proposed conceptions?

Either people, regulate, militia, and omniscience actually have well defined definitions, or everything is a living, breathing term.

That's completely up to you guys. No skin off of my back. ;)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Full Definition of OMNISCIENT
1: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2: possessed of universal or complete knowledge
No arguments from me.

BTW, my mother, God rest her soul, certainly seemed OMNISCIENT to me. My father, God rest his soul, was almost as OMNISCIENT as my mother, especially after my mom told my dad what I did.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
No arguments from me.

BTW, my mother, God rest her soul, certainly seemed OMNISCIENT to me. My father, God rest his soul, was almost as OMNISCIENT as my mother, especially after my mom told my dad what I did.

Good deal on the prior.

Whether you perceive something to be omniscient, and whether it is actually omniscient, are two completely separate things. ;)

One is an observation based on a limited set of knowledge.
The other being it's actual state of being.

A humble person, would not walk around saying, "My deity is omniscient.", especially with such a limited scope of knowledge, and not being able to present proof of a deity in the first place.

A lot of theists yield to this point, so you certainly wouldn't be alone in this regard. In fact, in light of the available information, and the lacking proof of a deity, I think it's the sign of a humble theists to yield on this particular point.
These I find more conversationally friendly/interesting, because, usually, they have considered their positions, and thought about their claims. This means they are more robust/learned when it comes to the nuances of such claims, philosophically speaking.

Subsets of religion (denominations) are as diverse as any other group, but there is no shortage of uninformed individuals parroting to others that their deity is omniscient, as a matter of factual claim. This is to add qualities and characteristics that the recipient is supposed to yield to. Everything from Westboro fundamentalists, to more liberal Episcopalians seem to differ on these claims.

By the way, such adverbs, reducing the state, only serve to prove my point.

Go ahead and continue with the mockery, by the way. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.
I cannot help but wonder if the difference between your childlike perception that your parents were omnipotent/omniscient, and your adult understanding, is that you grew up. :)

Have an awesome day fellas!
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
There was proposed at one time an idea that all of this is a dream.Now I have had dreams were I was omniscient about the whole dream yet unable to really interfere with what I have created in my mind.Having fun now exploring fringe ideas.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
There was proposed at one time an idea that all of this is a dream.Now I have had dreams were I was omniscient about the whole dream yet unable to really interfere with what I have created in my mind.Having fun now exploring fringe ideas.

Depending on what the author meant exactly, I could go along with that.

Mind's eye pictures: certainly I can re-create pictures (memories) in my mind's eye. Certainly, I can create (imagine) a new picture in my minds-eye (although, its getting harder with age).

If I can do it, surely others can (they've already told they can.)

If we can project an image for ourselves to view in our mind's eye, its only a matter of scale to project an image strongly enough that it is real. Alternatively, I see no reason why this couldn't be the mechanism by which He keeps it all going. Seems entirely plausible to me.
 
Last edited:

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
There was proposed at one time an idea that all of this is a dream.Now I have had dreams were I was omniscient about the whole dream yet unable to really interfere with what I have created in my mind.Having fun now exploring fringe ideas.

Just this post alone makes me happy that the conversation occurred.

Thought for you:

An omniscience would not necessitate the ability to interact with the state of all matter in motion.
It merely would know the state at any and all times.

This means no matter what you dream, if you are the omniscient entity, you know everything that happens in the dream with comprehensive totality.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Depending on what the author meant exactly, I could go along with that.Mind's eye pictures: certainly I can re-create pictures (memories) in my mind's eye. Certainly, I can create (imagine) a new picture in my minds-eye (although, its getting harder with age).If I can do it, surely others can (they've already told they can.)If we can project an image for ourselves to view in our mind's eye, its only a matter of scale to project an image strongly enough that it is real. Alternatively, I see no reason why this couldn't be the mechanism by which He keeps it all going. Seems entirely plausible to me.
I am not academic enough to understand the physics etc behind it, yet it was an article written by a scientist that claimed this all being a dream is hypothesis that works.I too as a child could seemingly create a reality in my mind. Others just called it an active imagination.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Just this post alone makes me happy that the conversation occurred.Thought for you:An omniscience would not necessitate the ability to interact with the state of all matter in motion.It merely would know the state at any and all times. This means no matter what you dream, if you are the omniscient entity, you know everything that happens in the dream with comprehensive totality.
+1 I like that thought about the "ability". For some reason I now cannot highlight or use other functions of this site. Even start new paragragraphs.......
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Re: Soul, existence of, independence of body

I invite you to consider the following, not as an argument but as a thought project... I'll be straight to the point.

Consider the illustration in the movie Avatar. The two main character's relationship transcends the death of the avatar body without resistance, clearly illustrating that the relationship between the two individuals was a relation between soulds, with the physical bodies in use being only non-critical components. This clarity in this illustration is amplified by the use of two distinct bodies being used by one soul, but with this illustration in mind we might more easily notice the soul-body distinction in our non-fictional lives.

For instance, consider the distinctions we humans make between what is referred to as superficial and genuine love, on referring to a love of the physical body and the other of the individual, or soul.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Re: Soul, existence of, independence of body

I invite you to consider the following, not as an argument but as a thought project... I'll be straight to the point.

Consider the illustration in the movie Avatar. The two main character's relationship transcends the death of the avatar body without resistance, clearly illustrating that the relationship between the two individuals was a relation between soulds, with the physical bodies in use being only non-critical components. This clarity in this illustration is amplified by the use of two distinct bodies being used by one soul, but with this illustration in mind we might more easily notice the soul-body distinction in our non-fictional lives.

For instance, consider the distinctions we humans make between what is referred to as superficial and genuine love, on referring to a love of the physical body and the other of the individual, or soul.

+1 Great example.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
One of the other board regulars even stated they enjoyed out debate/conversation, because it got them really thinking about things.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. I believe you resurrected this conversation and saved it!
I also enjoy seeing believers arguing about omniscience. All the faithful I've ever known have believed their god to be all powerful all knowing etc. To see someone arguing the particulars of omniscience is seeing a believer claiming their deity is limited in some way. This is the reason why early in the thread my questions went unanswered. Confronted with either admitting god implemented sin vs admitting god is limited it's best just to cover your ears and hum amazing grace.

I live in a universe where I exist now, but have absolutely no certainty what happens to me once I die.
I didn't exist for billions of years prior to my birth, and I do not remember it hurting or otherwise being detrimental.
To me, this is the one life I get. It is irreplaceable, and valuable beyond compare.
I do not waste it reiterating the ramblings of nomadic Bronze-Age sheep herders.

An elegant sentiment I share.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
On a more practical note the spirit is our essence that resides in the spiritual realm. Our soul is our spirit's manifested influence on the physical world.
 
Top